I move that the Bill do now pass.
Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Bill, 1944—Fifth Stage.
There is a certain amount of doubt as to the basis on which the cost of current will be calculated. I understood from the Minister on the Second Reading and Committee Stages that the cost will be based on the floor space. Numbers of people are under the impression that the floor space of their property, whether or not current is laid on to the house or a division of the house, will be liable for a charge. There is also some doubt whether the levy will be payable only on the ground floor or on all the floor space of a place such as an outhouse, which contains a loft. I would be glad if the Minister will indicate what the actual basis is, whether buildings not connected will be liable and also whether the lofts of buildings which are divided are liable, or is each light separate and if there will be a separate charge for lighting as distinct from power.
I would like if the Minister would give us some indication as to when the first stage of this rural electrification scheme is likely to be put into operation. I appreciate, and so does everybody else, the difficulties under which the board labours at present because of the shortage of materials, but the announcement of the scheme and the extensive publicity that it has received, has naturally brought about a situation in which people are keen to know when rural electrification is likely to reach various areas. Could the Minister give any indication of the Electricity Supply Board timetable for commencing operations, and whether there is any likelihood that the scheme will be under way within the next two years?
Will there be any change in the policy of the Electricity Supply Board in certain rural districts? I refer particularly to charges. Certain people have found that the exorbitant charge which they would have to pay for getting their houses connected with Electricity Supply Board current makes it impossible for them to instal electric light. I am not blaming the Electricity Supply Board in that connection. It costs a lot of money to instal electricity in a house a good distance away from other dwellings or villages. Under the rural electrification scheme will that policy of the Electricity Supply Board be altered? Is there likely to be a lower charge for installing electricity? Numbers of people are anxious to know that.
I should like to raise a point on the policy of the Minister as outlined on the Committee Stage. He gave the House to understand that he intended, in connection with power stations, to use turf exclusively for the generation of electricity. Since I mentioned this matter before, I have got information to the effect that the largest power station in Great Britain is worked exclusively on Welsh anthracite duff, which probably produces more electric current than we do in our whole State. This station is situated at Swansea in Wales and is known as the Tir John Station. I understand that Irish duff contains a higher percentage of ash than the Welsh duff but that it has approximately the same calorific value as Welsh duff. There is very little difference, the calorific value of the Irish duff being 11,000 B.T.U. and the Welsh 12,500 B.T.U. The extra amount of duff that we would require here would be very small and, in view of the pre-war price of duff—I believe that duff at one time could be got for something like 5/- a ton and there was a time pre-war when there was no demand whatever for duff—I put it to the Minister that before he embarks on a policy of using turf exclusively for the steam generation of electricity, he should consider making some investigations as to the desirability of using Irish anthracite duff and at least give it a fair trial.
I have some figures of comparisons between Irish anthracite duff and turf, and I find that Irish duff has a minimum ash content of 19.6 per cent. up to a maximum of 50.8 per cent. The calorific value varies from 17,070 B.T.U. to 11,550 B.T.U. I understand that the tests in this connection were carried out on dry coal, as distinct from coal in the condition in which it is received in the ordinary way of business. If the tests were carried out on ordinary coal, it would probably be necessary to make some allowance— from 4 to 6 per cent.—for moisture. Any experiments I can trace as having been carried out on turf appear to have been carried out on anhydrous turf, and the percentage of ash in this varies from 1.1 minimum to 3.4 maximum and the calorific value from 9,500 B.T.U. to 11,200 B.T.U. That is in respect of anhydrous turf, but in respect of ordinary air-dried turf, as dried on the bogs here, it would probably be necessary to reduce these figures by not less than one-third to get a fair comparison with anthracite duff, so that the calorific value of Irish duff would be 11,550 B.T.U. as compared with some 7,000 odd B.T.U. for turf.
In view of these ascertained figures —ascertained by experiments on Irish turf and Irish duff—I ask the Minister to give the House some assurance that, in this matter of embarking exclusively upon turf, he is embarking upon a wise policy. Figures have been put to us as to the probable cost of turf. We were told at one time that turf could be produced for 10/6, but we have had to alter that opinion and the approximate price at the moment is something like 50/-. If, under the new arrangement, the Minister could import machinery from Sweden or elsewhere and produce turf at a figure equivalent to the cost of Irish duff, we would support him in using turf as against Irish duff, but I strongly put it to him (1) that he is embarking on a scheme without any knowledge of what the cost to the country will be; and (2) that Irish duff is an available source of power which can be used and which ordinarily would not be a marketable commodity at all. I ask him to give some consideration to that aspect of this problem of developing power.
I understand that the Bill gives the Minister power to embark on a scheme of harnessing the River Erne and also gives power to the Electricity Supply Board to proceed with investigations in regard to water power in other rivers. I should like the Minister to inform us if that is true and that it will be possible to carry out extensive investigations in regard to the potentialities of waterpower throughout the Twenty-Six Counties. I have already directed his attention to the potentialities of one or two of our Wicklow rivers, particularly the Avoca River, and I suggest that, if any investigations are to be carried out, he should direct his attention to that area.
Deputy Cosgrave inquired as to the basis of determining the fixed charge for current supplied in rural areas. The intention is that the board will apply its present rural tariff. That rural tariff provides for a two-part charge, one part based on the quantity of current used and the other on the floor area of the house and outbuildings. Outbuildings for that purpose are buildings in the proper sense of the word. One half of the floor area of the outbuildings is taken into account in determining the amount of the charge.
Would it include a haggard?
It would include any building surrounded by four walls and with a roof.
There must be walls
There must be walls.
Would it include a temporary hut?
I should not like to answer that question without knowing precisely what the Deputy has in mind. It includes the permanent buildings on a farm only. The supply of any rural dwelling will depend upon the amount of the fixed charge being 1/16th of the capital cost of providing the supply. The method of determining the charge to be made for current is, of course, different. The present method used by the board for deciding the cost of the current supplied from the 10,000-volt system, is set out in the report on the rural electrification plan. One of the appendices gives the method of calculating the actual cost of current per unit, but, of course, the amount paid by the consumer will depend on the amount of current used. It is not proposed to have a separate charge for lighting and power. The system of charge will, however, mean that the individual rural consumer will pay at a higher rate for current consumed up to 600 units and at a much lower rate for current consumed in excess of 600 units. It is a reasonable assumption that the rural household will use in or about 600 units per year for lighting and ordinary domestic purposes, and that consumption over 600 units will be mainly for power purposes, so that, in effect, the consumer will be paying substantially less for current for power than for current for lighting, but that will not appear as a separate item upon his bill. There will not be two meters. There will be only one meter and power will be charged for on that basis—so much per unit up to 600 units and a much lower rate over 600 units.
The Minister has spoken of "four walls." Hay barns or Dutch barns are frequently closed at the prevailing wind side, and possibly on two sides. How will they be affected?
Did I understand the Minister to say 600 units per annum?
Yes.
Will there be a different method of assessment then? Will it be on an annual rather than on a two-monthly basis?
One hundred units every two months.
Hay barns are generally closed on one side. Does the Minister's reference to "four walls" imply bricks and mortar? Will corrugated iron, with which hay barns are generally closed, come under it?
There has not been a precise definition of "outbuildings" by the board, but it does not include sheds or shelters.
Would the Minister clear up this question about floor space? I take it that the Minister has been talking about ground floor space, but suppose there is a loft in an outhouse, what will the position be?
If there are two floors, then there will be double floor space. I could not attempt to forecast the date on which it will be possible for the Electricity Supply Board to commence construction. It will be not merely necessary for them to have a supply of equipment but also to have a reasonable assurance of continuity of supply, and the Deputy's guess is as good as mine as to when that situation will be arrived at. I am not sure if I understood Deputy Dockrell's query as to a possible change in the policy of the Electricity Supply Board in the matter of supplying power to houses in rural areas. It is the purpose of the Bill to effect a change in the policy and practice of the Electricity Supply Board in supplying power to rural areas. It may answer him if I say that when this Bill comes into operation it will not be necessary for rural dwellers in the areas that are being supplied by the Electricity Supply Board under this scheme to meet any part of the capital cost of connection. He will pay only on the basis of the annual charge.
Even if he lives quite a long distance away from the road?
First of all it is going to take a number of years to bring the supply to all rural areas. I am dealing now only with an area that is receiving a supply because the network has been constructed and the scheme is in operation in it. In such an area no capital charge will be imposed upon the supplier if he comes within the criterion ratio of 16 to which I have referred. If the capital cost of bringing the supply is more than 16 times the annual charge, then the householder will not come into the scheme and some contribution towards the capital cost would be necessary to enable him to receive a supply.
There are two rivers at the moment electrified—the Shannon and the Liffey. Will the Minister say how many more are to be electrified under this scheme? Is the Minister not aware that in some areas there is a greater need for water than for electricity?
Perhaps the Deputy had better continue his speech since I seem to be in the way.
I will not delay, though brevity is not a strong point with me.
I was under the impression that I was making my speech. However, there seems to be some misunderstanding on the point.
I am very interested in this. I come from a waterless county.
A Deputy
Have you no whiskey down there?
I hope the Minister will not think I have water on the brain.
If the Deputy has a question to ask he should ask it.
With the permission of the Chair, I wish to ask the Minister this question: if at any time he found that the supply of water was a greater necessity in a district than the electrification of rivers, could he take steps to supply it?
I can assure the Deputy that in the generation of electricity you do not consume water. You merely use the water power. The water is still there after you have generated the electricity.
The water is more important in some areas than electricity.
This Bill does not empower the Electricity Supply Board to investigate rivers for power purposes. It has that power now. A recent report, however, of the Electricity Supply Board indicates the rivers in respect of which investigations are proceeding. I am not sure that I have convinced Deputy Coogan of the wisdom of the decision to generate electricity by using turf as a fuel. There is no practical difficulty about using anthracite duff as a fuel for steam raising. The only question is whether we have anthracite duff to spare for electricity generation purposes.
You always had it pre-war.
We had not. Following the construction of the sugar factories and of the installation in these factories of boilers designed for the use of anthracite duff, I think it is true to say that the Irish Sugar Company was unable to get a sufficient supply of anthracite duff each year to meet its requirements. There have, of course, been very substantial developments in boiler design for using anthracite. Before the war we imported considerable quantities of anthracite. We imported a greater tonnage of anthracite than we produced. There is, therefore, nothing to be gained by using up for power purposes anthracite coal which, in the past, we used for other equally necessary purposes. If we divert for power purposes anthracite previously used for other purposes, then we will have to import more anthracite and make good any deficiency in supply that would otherwise result. If we were producing more anthracite than we could dispose of, then there would be a case for considering its use for power purposes. I do not think that is the situation. I think that will never be the situation here. The extraordinary growth in the demand for anthracite in the pre-war years is, I think, likely to continue after the war. In fact, our problem in relation to anthracite is to step up production so as to meet the demand for anthracite rather than to devise new methods of consuming it, and to get rid of any surplus that otherwise could not be disposed of.
I do not want to convey to Deputy Coogan that there is any practical difficulty in using anthracite coal for power purposes. There is none. The most recent boilers installed in the Pigeon House are fully capable of using all the types of coal produced in this country and are, in fact, using all the coal that they are allowed to get. I think that anthracite duff is superior to the coal that they are allowed to import. The decision, however, to use turf in the steam generating stations is due to the fact that turf represents an unused asset which can be developed for power purposes to an extent that has never been contemplated previously, and if we decide to rely on turf as a fuel for the steam generating stations, then we not merely have a source of employment in the country, but what is perhaps more important—a greater degree of security of supply in times of emergency such as the present. The utilisation of anthracite coal, however, in the stations constructed for turfburning will be quite practicable, and, in fact, if at any time there is the position in which we have a surplus of anthracite and a deficiency of turf, there will be no difficulty whatever in utilising anthracite in the boilers designed for the utilisation of turf.
Question put and agreed to.